Search for: "State v. Rupe"
Results 21 - 40
of 58
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jan 2016, 8:47 am
Civil matters are subject to the qualification of the dispute being related to property, debt, damage or demand not exceeding rupees 250,000.[13] Further it is subject to number of exceptions such as fundamental rights and matrimonial disputes. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 6:59 am
The term of imprisonment for contravening the ban was also raised from six months to five years, and the possible fine raised from 1,000 rupees to 10,000 rupees (about US$152). [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 9:53 am
Tahra Begum v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 3:20 am
Ritchie v Rupe, 2014 WL 2788335 [Tex. [read post]
29 Dec 2014, 4:14 am
Like me, Randazza — who was my counsel in Rakofsky v. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 4:18 am
The ruling in Ritchie v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 1:50 pm
State Office of Risk Management v. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 10:12 am
Workers compensation death benefits STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 10:21 pm
V. [read post]
23 Aug 2013, 1:05 am
Citizen v. [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 7:15 am
Tata Sons Ltd. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 10:33 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 12:46 am
The invalidation may have some serious repercussions on the ongoing Indian case ( BMS v. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 8:45 am
It has also proposed that a fine of a maximum of rupees ten lakhs may be imposed, which shall be given to the victim. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 3:08 pm
In 2006, the Delhi High Court in the case of the Scotch Whisky Association v. [read post]
28 Oct 2012, 5:30 am
ANN CALDWELL RUPE, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE DALLAS GORDON RUPE, III 1995 FAMILY TRUST, No. 11-0447. [read post]
1 Oct 2012, 11:54 pm
Four cheques for a total sum of rupees ten lakhs were issued by the respondent-company on 14th August, 1996 in favour of the appellant which were presented to the bank for collection on 21st November, 1996. [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 12:55 pm
Bhaskaran v. [read post]
21 May 2012, 3:54 am
,Suchomajcz v Hummel Chem. [read post]
18 Mar 2012, 9:34 pm
Ahmad v. [read post]
